PRINCE TURKI AL-FAISAL NAILS IT.....

 

Analysis of Prince Turki Al-Faisal's latest article!

*Nuclear Chaos and the Comprehensive Compliance Equation*

Naji Al-Ghazi / Political and Economic Researcher

Prince Turki Al-Faisal wrote an important article in The National, marking a pivotal moment in Gulf political discourse and the broader Arab world. Coming from a figure of Prince Turki's stature—a former security official, diplomat, and son of King Faisal—the article elevates it from an opinion piece to a strategic message addressed to Western capitals.
What he said was not an emotional outburst or propaganda, but rather a systematic and profound critique of the structure of the international system, centered on the fact that the Dimona reactor is not just a nuclear facility, but living proof of the collapse of the principle of international justice, and the transformation of the "rules-based order" into a tool of nuclear apartheid, punishing the weak and protecting the strong.

*First: Dimona as a symbol of the fall of international nuclear legitimacy*

The prince points out that Israel possesses a complete nuclear arsenal outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and outside the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This in itself is not new, but what is new is that this description comes from an official Gulf figure, with unprecedented clarity, coupled with an indirect—but extremely dangerous—call to apply the principle of justice through force: "If we were in a just world, B2 bombs would have rained down on Dimona."
Here, the prince is not just talking about a moral principle, but about a complete legal collapse: when a country is allowed to violate the non-proliferation regime for decades, without any inspection or accountability, while others are threatened with bombing for even considering peaceful enrichment, the international system is dead.

*Second: When power rules and justice is absent*

The text—both through the prince and the accompanying analysis—points to a dangerous transitional moment: the international order is no longer based on law, but on naked power. There are no longer standards, but rather acquiescence, subjugation, and exceptions.
America, in this context, has not fallen as a major power, but it has fallen morally and strategically as a reference system. It now, according to the article, is behaving as a "rogue state," not as the leader of the free world. This description is important because it shifts the conversation from blaming American policy to delegitimizing it internationally.

*Third: The threat is not only directed at Iran*

Here's one of the prince's most astute comparisons: Why are Iran's statements about the "annihilation of Israel" considered an existential threat, while Netanyahu's repeated statements since 1996 about the destruction of the Iranian regime are not considered a counter-threat?
This is not only a dismantling of the double standard, but also reveals the true purpose of escalation against Iran: it is not a direct confrontation, but rather a tool to tame the entire region, especially the Gulf states.
Targeting Iran, as the prince interprets it, is a “symbolic punitive act,” intended to send a message: nuclear deterrence is the exclusive domain of Israel, and any attempt by others—even for peaceful purposes—will be met with bombing and humiliation.

*Fourth: Diplomatic violence*

Here, Prince Turki's speech moves from the public to between the lines.
When he says that the bombing of Iran was accompanied by billions in financial demands from Saudi Arabia, he reveals the beginning of a phase of "strategic blackmail," in which "military dominance" is used as leverage to extract political and financial gains from allies, not enemies.
In other words, targeting Iran was an indirect message to the Gulf states: “Either you submit completely to a new American-Israeli leadership in the region, or you are next.”

*Fifth: If Trump were fair, he would have bombed Dimona*

This sentence was said by the prince, "If Trump were fair, he would have bombed Dimona." This sentence itself may resonate in the Western and Israeli media because it destroys the *myth of Israeli nuclear immunity* and moves the Gulf from the position of a "spectator" to that of a bold observer who calls things by their names.
The sentence doesn't actually call for bombing Dimona, but it does implicitly say, "Either the rules apply to everyone, or no rule has legitimacy."

One of the most serious points made in the article is the prince's warning that "trust between rulers and ruled in Western capitals is eroding." He cites the example of Muslim candidate Zahran Mamdani's victory in New York, despite his anti-Israel and anti-Zionist positions.
This shift in Western public opinion—supporting Palestine, breaking the fear of lobbies, and exposing the double standards of discourse—carries a *rebound force* that will pressure Western governments sooner or later. This is a strategic asset that Arabs must build upon, rather than simply relying on intergovernmental relations.

*Sixth: The last message*

What the prince ultimately said is that the non-proliferation regime has lost all meaning. It has become a sword in the hands of the West, pointed only at its adversaries, not a tool for balancing the balance and preventing war. At the moment of truth, the Arabs are told: You are a flexible material that can be shaped as needed. The real message behind the bombing of Iran is: *You are also targeted, and deterrence is the exclusive right of Israel alone.*

The article, despite its calm tone, carries within its lines the seeds of a Gulf political rebellion against the old formula of alliance with Washington. The rhetoric of hard power, financial blackmail, and Israeli immunity are no longer acceptable.
Prince Turki's voice represents *the voice of an elite Saudi movement that has begun to reject the humiliation of sovereignty in exchange for protection.* This does not necessarily mean the disintegration of the alliance, but it does mean redefining its terms and perhaps reversing the equation: from dependency to balance.
What Prince Turki al-Faisal said in his bold lines is not just an opinion, but a *strategic document* that outlines a new phase in the relationship between the Gulf and the West, and sounds the alarm about the coming nuclear chaos if the West continues to protect the exception for Israel at the expense of the stability of the entire region.

Indeed, a powerful analysis and position of the Price, diplomatically expressed but factual and direct, addressing a situation dating some long decades, and now exploding with the latest cruel developments engulfing the entire region, and possibly the world soon. 

As always my profound many thanks to all. 

THE HARD TRUTH.....

A very daring opinion article, saying it like it is, describing a very sad and unfortunate situation on the ground, where again we're watching dangerous developments, endangering Syria and the entire region around it, although written and received sometime ago, it is very timely with the present events ....  

Professor Dr. Daniel Charlie Hanna. 

Let me say it frankly and without beating around the bush, because the time for pleasantries is over. Neither "Israel" with its extreme right nor "Netanyahu's" government is capable of penetrating Syria with more than a few cowardly airstrikes, and they won't be able to change a thing in the equation. Neither the "SDF" nor "Mazloum Abdi's" brutality nor "Al-Hajri's" followers have the courage to stand in the way of the real popular tide that is imposing its presence on the ground. The state is back, against everyone's will, and it will extend its sovereignty over every inch. I want to say this with utmost sectarian frankness if necessary, not out of hatred for anyone, but because people need to hear the truth out loud: For 15 years of displacement, killing, starvation, and humiliation, we have not seen a single Alawite living in a tent, not a Druze, not even a Christian—and I am a Christian, and I say it out loud. The one who carried the war on his shoulders is the Sunni. The one who was killed, humiliated, displaced, and whose presence was erased from entire cities is the Sunni. Every tent was covered in his blood, and every destroyed neighborhood was inhabited by him. Let's be even clearer: The Sunnis have been paying the price since day one, the most humiliated and abused component in Syria's modern history. As a Christian, I bear witness to this, and I heard Professor Jihad Makdisi say it clearly: Sunnis are the most oppressed component in Syria. Today, after fifty years of oppression, marginalization, detention, displacement and liquidation, there is no longer room for any party to come and laugh at the people or steal their true victory. There is no longer room for tricks or deals. Five million martyrs and detainees since the Alawite Hafez coup d'état. This is because Syria was democratic, ahead of many European countries. It didn't matter whether an Alawite or another ruled. Hafez and the Alawite and Druze officers like Salim Hatoum and others took advantage and staged a coup. Of course, the Druze were liquidated by their comrade Hafez. Let's not forget the five million destroyed homes and 15 years of exile and diaspora. All of this won't go away so easily. The Sunnis, who persevered and were beaten, will no longer accept anything less than regaining their dignity and power in their country. Whoever doesn't like it can drink from the sea. As a Christian, I have lived through the suffering of these people and seen the injustice with my own eyes. I can say it clearly: There is no going back. The people who were buried under the rubble will return to write their own history, and this history will not allow anyone – neither foreign nor domestic – to impose guardianship over it from now on. Therefore, in all honesty, I see my interest only with the Sunnis, and I would be foolish to antagonize them, incite against them, or ride in the ship of others that will sink.

This short and very factual column, was forwarded to me by a friend sometime ago, I'm not a follower of the author and never heard him before, but surely to any follower of the Syrian scene, his frank analysis and description is courageous, and factual, even if many do not fully agree, including myself originally, but it is the naked truth, Copying his words would surely help us all better understand what's happening in Syria and possibly beyond it.
As always, my profound many thanks to all. Stay safe and well. We're going through some very dangerous times in our humanity.

A VERY REASONABLE ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENT.....

 

The Genocide Debate

Since Israel’s campaign in Gaza began incurring its heavy human cost, a very charged debate has simmered: is the Jewish State, itself born of the Holocaust, committing genocide? A new New York Times essay by genocide scholar Omer Bartov—who was raised in a Zionist home and lived half his life in Israel—has revived it.   “I believe the goal was—and remains today—to force the population to leave the Strip altogether or, considering that it has nowhere to go, to debilitate the enclave through bombings and severe deprivation of food, clean water, sanitation and medical aid to such an extent that it is impossible for Palestinians in Gaza to maintain or reconstitute their existence as a group,” Bartov writes. “[T]his was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.”   While Israel and its supporters maintain that the war against Hamas is just, some critics allege that the real aim is to drive Gazans off their land. That would constitute ethnic cleansing, defined as rendering a geographical area ethnically homogenous. Those critics are bolstered by select comments from the Israeli ultranationalist right, where politicians envision Israeli sovereignty over a Strip largely devoid of Palestinians. For instance: recently, far-right government minister Bezalel Smotrich said Gaza would be “totally destroyed” with Gazans “concentrated” in a humanitarian zone near the border and Israel in control. US President Donald Trump has publicly suggested displacing Palestinians to third countries.   Others, like Bartov, argue Israel is pursuing something even more extreme: genocide, defined as certain measures taken “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Proponents of this view point to the breadth of the killing, hunger, thirst and disease Israel’s military continues to unleash on Gazans—and again to disturbing comments by far-right Israeli government ministers, who in various moments have mused about the mass killing of Gazan civilians as a potential war strategy. The charge, levied by critics of Israel—including Amnesty International; the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories; and South Africa, which launched a case at the International Criminal Court—is that Israel wants to exterminate Palestinians in Gaza as a national group. On GPS in May of last year, Aryeh Neier—who fled the Nazis as a child and co-founded Human Rights Watch—made that case.   Naturally, Israel denies the allegation. The Israeli government and supporters around the world characterize the military campaign against Hamas in Gaza as a legitimate project to eradicate a terrorist group (which is also a political party and the local governing authority, whose founding document expressed a wish to “obliterate” Israel) that perpetrated the extreme violence of Oct. 7. Yes, the human toll may be high for innocent Gazan civilians—in fact catastrophic. But those lost lives, supporters of the war effort say, are unfortunate collateral damage. New York Times columnist and former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief Bret Stephens made the case to fellow columnist Ross Douthat recently. Any Israeli government would have retaliated, Stephens argued, and it was entirely reasonable after Oct. 7 to conclude that it was time to uproot Hamas completely. Hamas, not Israel, bears responsibility for the deaths of Gazan civilians because it prompted Israel’s predictable response, Stephens argued. In a Washington Post essay in June, scholars of the Holocaust and antisemitism Norman J.W. Goda and Jeffrey Herf argued similarly that Hamas is to blame. Accusing Israel of genocide, they added, is antisemitic: a repetition and transposition of past antisemitic smears against Jews as nefarious. “Those accusing Israel of genocide avoid describing Hamas’s exterminatory ideology and the genocide, commenced on Oct. 7 and then interrupted, that followed from it,” they write. “Mass poisoning and especially the depraved killing of children are among the oldest antisemitic tropes.” At The Times of Israel, Seth Eisenberg responds to Bartov’s essay, noting that intent must be present for genocide to occur, and Israel has stated clearly that it intends to kill Hamas fighters, not Gazan civilians; comments by far-right ministers, he adds, are not the same as government policy. “This is a tragedy and a war crime,” Eisenberg writes—“but committed by Hamas.” Indeed, some good points to the ongoing argument between several thinkers as well as politicians about the ongoing situation between Israel and its neighbors, more so of course Gaza, and creeping into the West bank, Syria and Lebanon. Again copied from Fareed Zakaria's global briefing, for the better understanding of this ongoing horrific situation by our blog's readers..  To all my good readers, all my thanks for following and reading. Thanks to all.

Battle scenarios in Sweida, Syria.

The governorate of Sweida is witnessing an unprecedented military escalation between Syrian regime forces and armed groups from the province portends a worsening of the security and political situation in southern Syria. After months of intermittent tensions, direct clashes erupted, involving machine guns and military vehicles, and extended to multiple areas within the province. What's striking is that these confrontations have not remained within the confines of a traditional security response, but have taken on an open character in the past few hours, suggesting that a swift resolution will not be achieved and that the battle is set to become more complicated unless a sudden settlement is reached.

The current situation opens the door to several possible scenarios. The first is that the escalation continues for a long period, exhausting and depleting regime forces on the Sweida front, which could push Kurdish groups in the North or other groups in the Alawite regions  to take military actions to exploit this preoccupation. If this possibility is realized, then the Syria we know, may enter into a model similar to the Libyan model. Or the Sudanese, where political centralization collapses and the state disintegrates into conflicting armed zones of influence, making control impossible and the war protracted.

The second scenario is no less dangerous, and represents the possibility of direct Israeli intervention under the pretext of protecting the Druze component in Sweida. Such intervention, if it occurs, could take the form of an Israeli invasion. Even if limited or establishing points of concentration inside Syrian territory, which will be considered a direct occupation that will not be accepted by Damascus in any form, it will inevitably lead to a direct military clash between Syrian and Israeli forces, with the wide regional repercussions that this would entail.

The third scenario is based on the Syrian state resolving the situation, aiming to confront it quickly, whether through force or negotiation, and then move toward some kind of agreement with Israel, overt or implicit, that guarantees it control over a large part of Syrian territory, in exchange for security or political understandings. This possibility may seem tempting to the regime in terms of regaining control, but it carries a significant risk to stability at the Home Front, especially if it is framed as normalization or abandoning traditional positions.

What is happening in Sweida goes beyond a local conflict and reveals a new phase in the Syrian conflict, one that could redraw the map of influence within the country and draw regional parties into open confrontations within Syrian territory.

The original article was by the insightful Ali Mantash, from the respectable site "Lebanon 24" , translated and arranged to fit our blog, as always, to help my good readers to better understand difficult and dangerous situations all over.        My many thanks, as always, to all. 

REALITY SARCASM ......

 

Newly elected Republican congressman Randy Fine called Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), as well as New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani "Muslim terrorists" using language of hate very similar in essence to the sarcastic fictional message used here by this talented columnist, I had this column dormant in my files, but now as the occasion of hate rhetoric recently resurfaced, here in America and from our official representatives, And Mr. Fine, who refers to himself as the “Hebrew Hammer,” has only doubled down since. I thought of publishing the column on our blog to the benefit and understanding of our readers. 

 
The talented writer Ahmed Al-Sarraf writes sarcastically in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas
Warning Christians:
Get out of Egypt and the Middle East countries so we can focus on killing each other and destroying our countries!!!!

Get out, Christians of Damascus, Yabroud, Maaloula, Saidnaya and Wadi al-Nasara, from our homelands. Get out, Christians of Mosul, Nineveh and Baghdad, from our countries. Get out, Christians of Lebanon, from our mountains and valleys. Get out, Christians of Palestine and the Jazira, from our beaches and our soil. 

Get out, all of you, from under our skins. Get out, all of you, for we hate you and do not want you among us. Get out, for we are tired of progress, civilization, openness, tolerance, love, brotherhood, coexistence and forgiveness. Get out, so that we can devote ourselves to killing each other. 

Get out, for you are not from us and we are not from you. Get out, for we are tired of you being the origin in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Palestine. Get out, so that we will not be ashamed of you when our eyes meet your eyes, wondering what happened? Leave us with our misfortunes, for you have those who welcome you, and we will stay here, far from you and your claims, talents, competencies, knowledge and experiences. Leave us with fanaticism, hatred, animosity and slaughter. Leave, for we have had enough of bearing what you claim of civilization. With your departure, we will devote ourselves to ending it, erasing its traces, and destroying what your ancestors left behind of idols, deformities, and monuments of stone, poetry, prose and literature.

 Leave, for neither Iraq, nor Egypt, nor Syria, nor Kuwait, nor Palestine, nor Jordan, nor the fragrant North Africa need you or those who lived among us before you of Gypsies, Jews and Stone. Go and leave and take mercy with you, for after Nusra, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the rest of the Brotherhood gangs and their latest products, we do not need mercy or sympathy, for blood will flow, violence will spread, hearts will be torn, livers will be eaten, tongues will be removed and necks will be loosened. And the knees will collapse, and we will return to ancient medicine and herbal medicine and reading old books and hitting the sand on the beach in search of luck.

Leave, our Christians, and take with you all the relics and bodies of Gibran Gibran, Sargon Boulos, Badawi Al-Jabal, Anastas Al-Karmali, Youssef Al-Sayegh, Saadi Al-Maleh, the sons of Takla, Al-Yaziji, Al-Bustani, Antoun Saadeh, and Al-Akhtal Al-Saghir. Also take with you your universities and hospitals, and close your missions, and we do not need even Mikhael Naimy, and do not forget May Ziadeh, the sons of Maalouf, Sarrouf, and the sons of Ghali, Zidane, Al-Khazen, Bustros, Thabet, and Al-Sakakini, for none of them are from us and we are not from them.

Yes, leave us, for we want to return to our deserts and ride camels. We miss our swords, our soil, and our beasts. We do not need you, your civilization, or your linguistic and poetic contributions. We have enough groups, killers, and bloodthirsty people to do without you.

Get away from us, Christians, with your culture, for we have replaced it with the culture of digging graves!

Ahmed Al-Sarraf
Al-Qabas Kuwaiti Newspaper.

He he he..... Sarcasm pushed to its limits, but sort of factual and existent among many unfortunate manipulated ignorants, brain-washed and used by fanaticism coming from all sides, Muslims, Zionists, Western imperialists or local dictators clinging to their seats, a big game in the Middle-East, a big game in the international arena being constantly fueled by Muslims and both Christian nationalists westerners and of course Israeli Zionists and their allies nowadays assuming the leading role of this undeclared war. All parties are guilty as such, whether aggressors or aggressed.

My many thanks to all my good friends and readers.    

WHAT"S HAPPENING OVER THERE.....

 

private

Beit Hanoun ambush: Implications 

and messages of the operation

Enass Karimeh

|

08-07-2025 | 07:00

At the moment PM Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing to present his political papers inWashingtonThe response from Gaza came in a completely different language. The attack carried out by theresistance In Beit Hanoun, it was not read as a limited field movement, but rather as a precisely timed political message that targeted the content of the visit, before it targets soldiers on the ground.

While it was an Israeli military establishment policy to talk about fortification of The front in the northern Gaza Strip, which is promoting control over what is known as the buffer zone, saw the operation originates from within this particular area, which monitoring sources considered a direct denial of everything previously announced. According to estimates, what happened can only be understood within the context of an escalation of operations that have continued since Khan Younis, reflecting that the resistance still maintains the initiative and is not waiting for the end of the negotiating process to redraw the rules of engagement.

In the same context, the technology showcased by the army did not succeed. Israeli in detecting or thwarting the movement, despite the deployment of surveillance vehicles and advanced systems along the border. Sources monitoring the situation believe that this failure is not only due to a technical malfunction, but also to a deeper flaw in the field of assumptions upon which the plan for deployment in the northern Gaza Strip was based.

The operation, according to the same sources, struck at a time when Tel Aviv promotes the possibility of recovering a number of prisoners through a potential deal, but it was met on the ground with the opposite scenario. The loss on the ground at this particular moment not only confuses security calculations, but also shakes the narrative the government sought to present in Washington, reflecting an imbalance between the political and field tracks.

In this context, sources point out that the "dead for prisoners" equation could have a direct impact on Israeli Home Front , as the loss of life at a time when negotiations are supposed to be in flux confuses public opinion and reshuffles the official discourse. The shock on the ground at this time contradicts everything the government has been trying to establish in terms of an illusory stability.

On the other hand, the operation coincided with escalating tensions within the Israeli leadership, amid differing positions between the military establishment and the prime minister, and signs of a growing gap between the Chief of Staff on the one hand, and Mr. Netanyahu and some members of the cabinet on the other. Sources indicate that this turbulent climate within decision-making circles increases the fragility of the Israeli position and gives the resistance more room to maneuver at critical moment

What happened in Beit Hanoun was not just a security breach; it was also a sharp message that th

What happened in Beit Hanoun was not just a security breach; it was also a sharp message that the resistance is still capable of surprising the enemy at the moment it believes it has the upper hand. The battle is not over, the resistance still has its surprises, and the occupation is facing a complex crisis whose boundaries are expanding by the day. 

A quick translation of an article in Arabic published in the "Lebanon 24" news site, whereby here in the States and probably most of the Western world, no one mentioned an ambush in Beit Hanoun at these times. I found it more indicative and explicit of the real situation on the ground, more so than the official media and announcements made by several political sides.

Again, and as always, my many thanks to all my good readers.